ORDER :

The petitioners in E.A. No. 117 of 2020 are the Revision Petitioners. They had originally filed E.A. No. 100 of 2018 u/s 47 CPC in E.P. No.57 of 2017 in O.S. No. 348 of 1999, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Vellore. The said E.A. No. 100 of 2018 had been dismissed for default on 12.03.2020. Seeking to restore E.A. No. 100 of 2017, the petitioners filed E.A. No. 117 of 2020. That application had been dismissed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Vellore, by order dated 11.12.2020. Questioning that order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. A narration of the facts would be instructive:

2. O.S. No. 348 of 1999 had been filed by Arulmigu Tharakeswarswamy Temple at Tottapalayam in Vellore District against M. Ulagannal and S. Elangovan seeking a judgment and decree to direct the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the building and premises described in the schedule to the plaint and for costs of the suit. In the schedule, the property was described as Municipal Door No. 61, Katpadi Road, Thottapalayam, where the defendants were doing business. In the particulars of valuation of the suit, it had been stated that the suit had been filed for eviction by the plaintiff, a Hindu Religious Institution and reference had been made to G.O. Ms. No. 1574, Home, dated 29.10.1979 relating to eviction of buildings belonging to Hindu Religious Institutions.

3. Pending the suit, the 1st defendant, M. Ulagannal died and his widow, U. Porkodi was impleaded as the 3rd defendant. The 2nd defendant, S. Elangovan and the 3rd defendant, U. Porkodi are the revision petitioners herein.

4. In the plaint, it had been very specifically stated that the building and premises bearing Door no. 61, Katpadi Road, Vellore, belongs to the temple, who is the landlord. The 1st defendant was the tenant of the building paying a monthly rent of Rs.656/-. It had been stated in the plaint, that the 1st defendant was residing at Salem, but carrying on business at Vellore. The 2nd defendant, S. Elangovan is said to be power of attorney agent of the 1st defendant.

5. This brings to light a very significant fact. The very locus of the 2nd defendant to file the affidavit in support of E.A. No. 117 of 2020 is questionable. There are no averments that he is also the power of attorney agent of the 3rd defendant, U. Porkudi. She had been impleaded in her individual capacity. The principal, M. Ulagannal, the 1st defendant is dead. The power of attorney automatically stands terminated and the 2nd defendant S. Elangovan becomes a persona non grata. He has never been the tenant. He was the power agent of the tenant. On death of the tenant, the legal heir of the tenant had been impleaded as the 3rd defendant. The agency stands frustrated by death of the principal. Even before delving further into the facts it can be stated that S. Elangovan, the 2nd defendant has no right to question the decree in O.S. No. 348 of 1999 either under Section 47 of CPC or under any other provision. He is a stranger/squatter in the property.

6. In the plaint, it had been stated that S. Elangovan had been impleaded as the 2nd defendant only in his capacity as power of attorney agent of the 1st defendant and was representing the 1st defendant in allied proceedings in O.S. No. 161 of 1982, and in E.P. No. 223 of 1991 in the said suit, then pending on the file of the Sub Court, Vellore, where he had impleaded himself as the 2nd defendant on the strength of the power of attorney document, said to have been executed by the 1st defendant, M. Ulagannal on 11.12.1989. Unless the 2nd defendant, S. Elangovan is able to establish that U. Porkodi had executed a power of attorney in his favour prior to 23.12.2009, which is the date of the order impleading her as 3rd defendant, it can be very confidently stated that the 1st revision petitioner, S. Elangovan has played a fraud on the Court proceedings, and is continuing to play fraud and abuse the process of Court by filing this